nationfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Kunarian/Taxation Act 2012
Lovia avoids the use of Legalese in its laws, so avoid stuff like "so it be enacted" and other pointless law stuff if possible. Thanks. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:05, May 23, 2012 (UTC) All it is the top of the act, the actual law as you know is going to be below, and will be the only bit that ends up in the law book, if anything humour me for trying to make it a little more interesting if anything. Kunarian 06:08, May 24, 2012 (UTC) Okay, just making sure. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:53, May 24, 2012 (UTC) 2 things: #"Healthcare Insurance" Fund should be labeled "National Healthcare Service" and #Wouldn't it be wise to charge people making more than say, 1 (or 5 or 10) million dollars a greater percentage of income tax. I don't think something as extreme as what France plans to do, but maybe 40 or 45% instad of the 30. HORTON11: • 18:30, September 21, 2012 (UTC) Okay: #National Healthcare Insurance Fund was the agreed upon name of the fund (that needs to be seperate from the NHS for operational reasons) which is used to pay for peoples healthcare, this was all aranged a while ago. #Again this was discussed ages ago and for a beginning law we agreed that the (considered by many to be extreme in the past as Yuri planned only a L$1200 exemption from tax) L$30,000 was a good exemption to make sure the poor had the money to pay and that those that could pay tax could pay 30% on all earnings above that (which might even bring in a surplus in the first tax year when you consider Lovia). Also another point, we don't need to tax people just because they have money, preferably only tax them enough to fill budgets but I understand your point. btw thanks for contributing, I was starting to think everyone was like me and had decided to throw tax out the window and abandon the government spending plans :L Kunarian (talk) 18:41, September 21, 2012 (UTC) #Then it should be the Social Security Fund- look it up on 2.1 and 2.2 of the Social Security Act #No one would be stupid enough to get rid of taxes and public spending. HORTON11: • 18:54, September 21, 2012 (UTC) Also, what happened to that wikination you started? HORTON11: • 19:03, September 21, 2012 (UTC) #Hmmm, it probably should, I'll look it up though because the money was supposed to operate very differently to the SSF if I remember #No one. And that's why when no one commented, I got worried :L I ran out of time. I've been thinking about re starting it up, I still have all the ideas and motivation, and time soon shouldn't be too much of a problem. At the beginning of last year I was a bit depressed and over worked and had some trouble with some people who were trying to attack me in the town I live in. However recently I've got my life together a bit and now have a very supportive girlfriend to help with that so soon I should be able to jump straight over there (maybe even this weekend if I get some work done) and try and finish up some starting articles and maybe even work on the history of the Regions and maybe get some people to be the Governor equivalents of others and start up their own histories for them. Kunarian (talk) 19:19, September 21, 2012 (UTC) : I might also be able to help a bit. And you could also join one of two remaining WikiMonarchies: Brunant. We can always use another crazy rightist in politics (and you could also expand the Kameron companies there). HORTON11: • 19:26, September 21, 2012 (UTC) :: "Crazy" rightist? That doesn't sound too appealing. We have a Free Liberal Party there that you can take control of, though. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:50, October 8, 2012 (UTC) OWTB's réponse Alright, time to work on this. #Perhaps it would be good to give definitions of "vague things" such as capital gains and lump sums. #CCPL is pro a more progressive taxation. The higher incomes should pay more. I like the idea of the 30.000 line, but I'd say it would be better to work this way: ##below 20.000: no taxation ##every 5.000 more: +5% to a maximum of 45% (so 35.000 = 15%, 50.000 = 30%, 70.000 = 45% etc.) #Another one: I believe all incomes should pay National Insurance Tax. Or at least we should make the line 20.000. Otherwise, it's a good start :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:09, October 6, 2012 (UTC) #explanations for those could get a bit painful but if you think it'd be better then I'd happily do it. #well I think I might just pass the law with blanks as everyone feels differently. As you might know my feelings on progressive taxation is that it's counter productive as under flat tax the higher incomes do pay more, progressive taxation normally taxes the rich more to appease those jealous of them when in fact most of the rich come from working class and middle class backgrounds and have worked hard to earn their cash and I don't think we should take that away from them. #I think though I would agree to a below 20,000 no tax if above it, it is a flat 25% income tax and 5% NI tax. By the way what is the logic behind everyone paying NI? Thanks, it's going to be a rocky one to pass to be honest because people won't pass it unless it's the way they want it and then we'll go another year without a budget. Kunarian (talk) 13:19, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :Alright: :#I do think that, but you could see it as a recommendation, nothing huge :) :#That's something I don't believe in. Here in the Netherlands, we've got progressive taxation and it is working just fine. Your idea of how the tax system should be, sounds to me like being selfish :P :#Am I doing something wrong here? :P What is National Insurance Tax? Isn't it for the social security? :Yeah, but the principles of this law are backed by CCPL :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:38, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::#right then I'll do it. Issue 1 solved ::#I'm not saying that it doesn't work I'm saying that it's unfair to people who work hard to get where they are. And may I ask how it is selfish? Also may I say that I'd at the most agree to a two set progressive taxation system, where we have 25% on standard earnings then when you get up to a large number such as L$200,000 (or possibly a higher one) then you instead tax 50%. ::#NI tax goes to social security you are right. ::I'm glad, we need a budget after all. Kunarian (talk) 13:46, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :::Kunarian, progressive taxation is the future and we should just accept it. Personally I think this is the best system for taxation, why? Under fixed-sum tax the poor garbage boy would have to pay the same as millionnaires like me and you. Those in the upper 1 or 5% can afford to pay more taxes and that wouldn't really hurt them financially. While I do not think a Sweden or France style taxation (up to 75%) is reasonable, Oos proposal of up to 45 or 50% is what we should stick to. I would be glad to pay more proportionally knowing it would go toward services helping the community and the country. HORTON11: • 14:06, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::I should accept something because you say so? no way hosay, progressive taxation is not and never will be the future, it is simply one way of doing the sytem. No he won't Horton you're wrong. if someone was to earn £20 and then be taxed 10% on it they'd pay £2 how is that the same as earning £200,000 then being taxed 10% which is £2,000? it's not, besides Lovia will have an exception from tax as proposed by CONSERVATIVES that recognises two groups of people, those who can pay tax and those who can't, and we tax nothing on those who can't. And to be honest Horton that's the exact attitude that causes problems, I'd be glad to do this, I'd be glad to do that. What if someone else isn't? what if they believe they'd help people better by creating more jobs or increasing pay for workers or investing somewhere? it's a false argument that proves nothing. And may I say that taxation is a MEANS not an end, what we are aiming to do is fill a budget, not tax the rich because they are rich. You want to improve income equality? taxation is by far not the best way to do it. Besides I've already stated how far I'd go. Kunarian (talk) 14:20, October 6, 2012 (UTC) Back to the points: #that's good :) #Though we fully disagree on this point - and I'm not really pro fifty-edit discussions which lack a conclusion - I'm sure we can reach a consensus. We'll find a way in between :P #Okay :P Well, everybody makes use of the service, so everybody should pay for it - unless they can't of course - right? :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC) Yes I agree: #By the way would you like all written out and explained or just some in particular? :) #I'm very willing to bend I will say, I understand that people are touchy on this subject however I believe that reasonable earnings (up to L$200,000) should be taxed the same while anything above this can be considered worth beating money from, I'm also open to further progressive taxation however I don't think I can drop the exclusion from tax to L$20,000 as it's a main policy of ours to keep it at and plus translating that money into pounds it's about L$30,000 = £16,700 (which is about 20,000 euros) which I can tell you is a very very hard budget to live on anyways so we're helping the poor here by not touching their hard earned cash. #Yes, which is why the tax exclusion is there :D Kunarian (talk) 14:47, October 6, 2012 (UTC) Kunarian, its not so black and white as tax-payers and non-tax payers. There are those whose income may be just above the poverty line, for example paying 10,100 as opposed to 9,900. The difference may be there but person A would be making much less than the poor person with tax, and they would be forced to pay the same proportionally as a multimillionnaire, and this end up hurting the average worker more than the rich guy. What we should do is to establish income brackets (ex. $10,000-19,999 etc.) and determine tax on that. HORTON11: • 14:49, October 6, 2012 (UTC) The person getting paid 10,100 never ends up with less that the person earning 9,900. The tax exclusion means that earnings up to a certain amount aren't taxed, simple. And the art of taxing isn't about hurting someone more than someone else, it's about making sure that the people who could hurt don't. We shouldn't establish a ton of income brackets: A) it's unessesary B) it means that just as an ordinary worker gets paid more, we take more, which is wrong, we should have a flat tax on reasonable income and increase it for unreasonable income. Kunarian (talk) 14:56, October 6, 2012 (UTC) # Preferrably: capital gains, lump sums, and rental income. # Depends on where you live :P I could perfectly survive with €400 a month, which is €4,800 a year :P # We should split National Insurance: everyone should pay for his own "old day" (=private retirement, a separate state retirement for those who have not built up this, will be part of the social security), but only those who earn too much, have to pay the rest of the social security :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:57, October 6, 2012 (UTC) # I can do that! # Dear me, I wanna live where you do! my family is having trouble putting food on the table and we earn way above £30,000 a year then again there are 9 of us. :L # Isn't that a split in how it's spent by the Ministry of Health? :P Kunarian (talk) 15:02, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :2. That's why we need progressive taxation: we need children's allowance and that can only be payed if the higher incomes give us just a little bit more of the huge amount of money they generate :) :3. No? :P This system creates a situation in which people pay for their own retirement; giving them some extra money above the standard "senior subsidies" when they leave the working field. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:01, October 7, 2012 (UTC) Compromise After reading through your act in further detail, I have come up with a solution that would incorporate both our opposing tax ideas. I support progressive taxation in order to help people out, so I tought, why not just make social security taxing progressive, this is the money which is ultimately going to help people out. And as you have stated we could then make income tax fixed, as that money would go towards other, non-welfare needs. HORTON11: • 19:02, October 6, 2012 (UTC) : I'd have to hear other peoples opinion on this, but thanks for helping this along. Kunarian (talk) 19:03, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :: Well, what's your opinion? That's something I would very much care to see. From what I have read progressive taxation is to help welfare, so we should make welfare tax progressive. HORTON11: • 19:12, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::: I'd support progressively taxed funds for social security and flatly taxed income tax. Kunarian (talk) 19:14, October 6, 2012 (UTC) :::: We would need to hammer out the details and you would need to change your tax act, but that's something I could agree to. We could make some broad tax brackets where the poor pay very little, no income pay nothing and those making over 1 or 5 million pay the highest percentage. HORTON11: • 19:35, October 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::: Don't worry it is designed to be changable. And incomes would rarely go over something like L$360,000 according to my estimates and that'd be something like a really good CEO or maybe an experienced Banker or Traders wage, few incomes exist above this and would be all those seriously overpayed people that earn millions. Kunarian (talk) 19:55, October 6, 2012 (UTC) I agree that a progressive welfare tax is good. And about the insurance tax, it seems that it is the same thing as the income tax - they are both taxing income (all five types). I propose that, say, 30% of the tax is progressive (fixed to a certain equation (no "categories") and capped at 40% or 45% of income), and 70% is flat. Then again, those could also be combined into a slightly less progressive tax. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:20, October 8, 2012 (UTC) "Income Tax and National Insurance Tax can be payed in two ways and must be paid every year on the 31st of February." Guess we'll never be paying this tax. :D —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:33, October 24, 2012 (UTC) : An error from the change of January to February :L I'll correct it in a minute :L Hoffmann KunarianTALK 20:45, October 24, 2012 (UTC) Change it to December, please. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:55, October 24, 2012 (UTC) : That causes electoral problems and means that spending policies of the next Congress are tied to the taxation policies of the previous Congress, which is a recipe for disaster. it has to be after the federal elections. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:06, October 24, 2012 (UTC) :: Politics are not corrupt at all here. That is a valid point, but I'd suggest January 31, since those are after elections, but before inauguration. Optimal if you ask me. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:16, October 24, 2012 (UTC) ::: whoa whoa where did corruption come in here? :L I don't know if January is enough time for people to sort out reasonable budget estimates and agree on taxation and spenind, early february may give a little more time for negotiation. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:19, October 24, 2012 (UTC) :::: Oh, I see. I think February is not a good choice because of leap years. Maybe March 1? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:08, October 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::: Already done. I think this taxation act'll get passed by a good majority personally, it'll be interesting to see how the federal elections affect how we spend and tax next year. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 22:40, October 24, 2012 (UTC) Is this were the state income tax clause will be added?Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:26, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :: On this act, yes. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 20:36, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :: Until then i'm guessing that states may not be able to tax? Seems a shame. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:47, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :: Can we combine Capital Gains and Income tax as one bracket? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:45, December 19, 2012 (UTC) :::They are already, most countries like to help out certain interest groups by separating this from income and taxing it lower, but not in Lovia. :D So I guess you kind of have got your capital gains tax by proxy. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 22:53, December 19, 2012 (UTC) :::Continuing... I'm complex politically, i'm a socialistic-progressive-capitalist. I also don't like the NI Tax that britian has, (me and the git george osborne agree on something). It seems just like a(second) personal tax but used for spefic things.I'd rather have a 60% tax on the richest than a 50% personal tax on the richest and then a 10% NI tax. Yeah honestly I like strong regulations and strict tax code, but simplified and low corporate tax (around 20%). Are you going to fully include the NI tax in your first clause? Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:15, December 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::I think we're all a bit complex here in Lovia, we have some very unique politicians. Yes, I know, we technically in Lovia have a combined income and national insurance tax. The income tax is flat, the national insurance is progressive. So it's really already implemented. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:20, December 19, 2012 (UTC)